Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7731784" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It's complex, for me, when playing a TTRPG. I like grappling with systems and crunch...but I also like telling an awesome story with loads of so-called &quot;fluffy&quot; details. I like having the option to talk my way through most conflicts...but also being able to crack skulls when I need to. In some ways, I'm both highly attached to specific fluff, yet in other ways I can work around nearly anything. I hate it when the choices I've made about how I build my characters simply don't matter, but I also hate it when I have to plan to the sixth decimal place before I even get to session 0.So...yeah. It's a hairball.&quot;Fallacy&quot; seems like a very strong word, here. I think it would be more accurate to say that subsuming all of this into the single word &quot;fun&quot; makes the word nearly useless. It's one of the mixed blessings of English. As a highly analytic language (read: we break things down into small, single words, with minimal inflection, relying on word order), English tends to favor high-concept words that are then narrowed down by circumlocution or adjectives. E.g. unlike in medical terminology, common English does not have individual words for glioblastoma vs. melanoma vs. osteosarcoma: we instead speak of brain cancer or skin cancer or bone cancer; or unlike ancient Greek, which had numerous terms for the affectionate relationships between humans, English speaks of love as an over-arching thing, within which one may find particular flavors like &quot;platonic&quot; or &quot;familial.&quot;To cut my blathering shorter: I just mean that, while I agree that people are usually using the over-arching category &quot;fun&quot; incorrectly, that doesn't mean that it is inherently incorrect to use it. There may be reasons to do so, sometimes, just as there are reasons *not* to do so sometimes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 7731784, member: 6790260"] It's complex, for me, when playing a TTRPG. I like grappling with systems and crunch...but I also like telling an awesome story with loads of so-called "fluffy" details. I like having the option to talk my way through most conflicts...but also being able to crack skulls when I need to. In some ways, I'm both highly attached to specific fluff, yet in other ways I can work around nearly anything. I hate it when the choices I've made about how I build my characters simply don't matter, but I also hate it when I have to plan to the sixth decimal place before I even get to session 0. So...yeah. It's a hairball. "Fallacy" seems like a very strong word, here. I think it would be more accurate to say that subsuming all of this into the single word "fun" makes the word nearly useless. It's one of the mixed blessings of English. As a highly analytic language (read: we break things down into small, single words, with minimal inflection, relying on word order), English tends to favor high-concept words that are then narrowed down by circumlocution or adjectives. E.g. unlike in medical terminology, common English does not have individual words for [I]glioblastoma[/I] vs. [I]melanoma[/I] vs. [I]osteosarcoma[/I]: we instead speak of [I]brain[/I] cancer or [I]skin[/I] cancer or [I]bone[/I] cancer; or unlike ancient Greek, which had numerous terms for the affectionate relationships between humans, English speaks of love as an over-arching thing, within which one may find particular flavors like "platonic" or "familial." To cut my blathering shorter: I just mean that, while I agree that people are [I]usually[/I] using the over-arching category "fun" incorrectly, that doesn't mean that it is [I]inherently[/I] incorrect to use it. There may be reasons to do so, sometimes, just as there are reasons *not* to do so sometimes. [/QUOTE]

Verification